Junk art: The art that needs to be understood – Autoethnographic perspective | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Technoetic Arts
  4. Volume 18, Issue 2
  5. Article
Taboo–Transgression–Transcendence in Art & Science
  • ISSN: 1477-965X
  • E-ISSN: 1758-9533

Abstract

Thierry Bardini, in his book titled , proposed that the apt name for contemporary art would be junk art. He stressed the significant change taking place in art: that the narration and explanatory discourse run by an artist is more important than the visual outcome of the project. According to the knowledge from STS (especially Bruno Latour’s writing), knowledge production is based on multilevel translations. Art based on science can be seen as a kind of translation as well. The production of biological knowledge and bio art creation looks pretty similar, being based on the same laboratory protocols. However, something interesting is happening regarding bio art’s presentations in galleries or museums. The audience is usually unfamiliar with the laboratory work process, which results in something akin to getting just one layer of that translation cake. What is the role of an institution in making junk art readable? What does being lost in translation mean in this context? To work on the questions, I use my autoethnographic notes from the performative killing of my cells (immortalized ), which took place at the opening of an exhibition titled at Gallery Łaźnia in Gdańsk (18 December 2019).

© 2020 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00031_1
2020-10-01
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bardini, T.. ( 2011), Junkware, Minneapolis and London:: University of Minnesota Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Davis, J.. ( 1996;), ‘ Microvenus. ’, Art Journal, 55:1, pp. 70–74, https://www.jstor.org/stable/777811. Accessed 15 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Gennep, A. van. ( 1960), The Rites of Passage: A Classical Study of Cultural Celebrations, Chicago:: Chicago University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Kac, E.. ( 2022;), ‘ Kac. ’, https://www.ekac.org/index.html. Accessed 15 January 2022.
  5. Knorr Cetina, K.. ( 1999), Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Cambridge, MA and London:: Harvard University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Latour, B.. ( 1999), Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge, MA and London:: Harvard University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Latour, B.. ( 2007), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, London:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Lynch, M.. ( 1985), Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in Research Laboratory, London, Boston, Melbourne and Henley:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Mitchell, R.. ( 2010), Bioart and the Vitality of Media, Seattle and London:: University of Washington Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Żyniewicz, Karolina. ( [2020] 2022;), ‘ Junk art: The art that needs to be understood – Autoethnographic perspective. ’, Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, 18:2&3, pp. 113–24, https://doi.org/10.1386/tear_00031_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00031_1
Loading
Junk art: The art that needs to be understood – Autoethnographic perspective
Technoetic Arts 18, 113 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1386/tear_00031_1
/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00031_1
/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00031_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): autoethnography; bio art; junk art; liminality; performance; ritual

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error